From what I've seen reported on the news, the main focus of the...

From what I've seen reported on the news, the main focus of the report is around screening of better staff (and rightly so) and increasing the number of staff to elderly ratio (and rightly so).

Have you read the clinical trial documentation though, https://painchek.com/clinical-studies? So you are aware that the RCA carers are already doing those 5 out of the 6 manual APS assessments whether they are using Painchek or not so they will only save time on the facial assessment if Painchek is used.

A federal and legal audit system will be more cost effective so the government can use the $20M per year on other area like screening for staff, you can fund an entire sector to do this on $20M per year otherwise staff will just be doing what they are currently doing for pain management with those 5 out of 6 manual assessments whether Painchek is used or not.

Like I said, some carers will find Painchek useful because they find the facial assessment of APS difficult to perform and these RCA will pay for them and then request grant if they can't pay for the service, the government shouldn't just mandate and risk wasting tax payers money with this very important reform of this sector.